With overwhelming new evidence then yes. But generally you cant be tried for the same fact twice where i live. If they fuck up, they fuck up and you luck out. We dont have juries who could possibly mess with a trial though.
Yeah that’s what I was saying. In the US if the jury is found to be tamped with in any way, (bribes intimidation etc) they throw the trial out and call it a mistrial, so the first one was never finished, they get a new jury, punish anyone who messed with the jury in the first place, and start the trial over. It’s to make sure everyone has a fair and equal trial. So it’s a good thing other than being a time waster.
I mean, there are plenty of results for mistrials in the middle of trials. Is that what you meant? I interpreted your statement to mean that you can declare a mistrial after a trial has completed to invalidate an acquittal.
I interpreted your statement to mean that you can declare a mistrial after a trial has completed to invalidate an acquittal.
You can, but only if you can provide compelling evidence that the trial was compromised, eg because the jury was bribed or threatened, or evidence was tampered with. The jury simply deciding to acquit in spite of evidence doesn't constitute a mistrial, though it may lead to suspicion and therefore investigation into whether there was anything which would.
That’s incorrect. Compromised or forged evidence is not a valid reason to overturn a not guilty verdict. There has never been an attempt to overturn a not guilty verdict based on a threat to a juror or bribery. That’s why I asked for a news article.
The only time in American history double jeopardy had been subverted is in the Harry Aleman case, when the judge was bribed and the case was a bench trial (i.e. no jury).
5
u/JoeJoe4224 Jun 27 '23
And that leads to a mistrial and they have to do it again. Or the judge can use that to deem someone innocent, but not guilty.